My response to Molli P

Molli P's post on cigarette smoking and airport security

While I agree that the dangers of cigarette smoking are very real, I do now see how this compares to airport security. Over the past several years, there has been a lot done to try to help reduce exposure to second hand smoke. There are very few establishments where smoking is permitted. Many employers have gone to completely smoke free campuses. My employer even charges an extra monthly surcharge on health insurance if you or your dependents smoke. Outside of completely banning cigarettes, which, as you stated, is not likely to happen anytime in the foreseeable future, I do not see much more that can be done. However, the threat to air travel is something we can try to control. After having watched one of the planes hit the twin towers on 9/11, I believe everything being done and all of the money being spent in airports now is justified. I don't believe anyone would have had a problem with the security in place in the days immediately following 9/11. Unfortunately, as that day becomes a more distant memory people become more intolerant of these measures.

Freedom of the press vs National Security

     With the recent postings on Wikileaks of classified government documents we must ask ourselves if there is a time when the interests of government overshadow freedom of the press.  I believe that as in freedom of speech, there are times when for the greater good there should be limits placed upon the right of the press to publish government information.

     First Amendment Center gives several examples of when the public’s best interests were best served by the restriction of sensitive information.  Rarely does the Supreme Court agree with the unlimited access of information to the press.  As this website tells us, in the decision sited in the 1965 case, Zemel vs Rusk, the court stated that “the right to speak and publish does not carry with it the unrestrained right to gather information.”  Also, a third circuit court upheld the state department’s right to hold deportation hearings in secret during the immediate post 9/11 months in North Jersey Media Group v. Ashcroft.  The decision was based on the information’s importance in maintaining national security. 

     The freedom of the press is an important check that helps hold government officials accountable for their actions.  I believe this is an important check that is vital to a government by the people.  I do not believe the government has the right to withhold information in an effort to hide mistakes.  However, there is definitely information to which the whole world should not be privy to in the interest of the security of our country and to promote favorable world relations.

This whole immigration thing....

Response to a blog on Lina's View on Government:

Lina, I definitely agree with you in that the general public often stops looking at illegal immigrants as people.  I admit to having issues with people being here illegally, not contributing to any public programs, yet still reaping the benefits of those programs.  However, as you stated, I can see myself doing the same thing if the situations were reversed.  If our country was the same as Mexico, I would probably be figuring out a way to get my children into Canada by any means possible.  I see people talking down to immigrants, even to their children.  While I agree with the logic behind the arguments against illegal immigrants, we still need to see them as people and treat them as such.  The answer to the problem is immigration reform, not hatred.